“I don’t believe or want my now conservative beliefs to trump my Constitutional beliefs going back to my service in WWII. As such neither Obama, Rubio, and even my brother(KIA Okinawa) and I were/are eligible for POTUSA as ‘natural born citizens’.”
History records no such belief from the time of WWII.
The last citation the two-citizen-parent theorists have is from 1916, when Breckinridge Long argued that Charles Evans Hughes was ineligible. Long got around the fact that issue had been settled by the 14’th Amendment and the 1898 WKA case by arguing, “Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.” [Breckinridge Long, “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”, Chicago Legal News vol 146, pp. 220-222]
In our time, legal references have considered the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled. [Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968)][Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988)]
The two-citizen-parent theory seems to have had no modern advocates until October or November of 2008, when Leo Donofrio filed the first of his losing lawsuits. A faction of the birthers quickly adopted the long-dead theory as their deeply-held constitutional belief, though none of them can show that they believed it before they needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be president.
Or maybe I’m wrong on that. Please cite anything from between 1916 and 2008 saying that a native-born candidate’s eligibility depends on his parents having been citizens.
Just a note for accuracy, but Gordon talks about the NBC as being dependent on citizen parents as is defined in Minor v. Happersett.